A population-based analysis of spirometry use and the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are associated diseases. COPD is underdiagnosed and thus undertreated, but there is limited data on COPD diagnosis in the setting of lung cancer. We assessed the diagnosis of COPD with lung cancer in a large public healthcare system. METHODS: Anonymous administrative data was acquired from ICES, which links demographics, hospital records, physician billing, and cancer registry data in Ontario, Canada. Individuals age 35 or older with COPD were identified through a validated, ICES-derived cohort and spirometry use was derived from physician billings. Statistical comparisons were made using Wilcoxon rank sum, Cochran-Armitage, and chi-square tests. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2014, 756,786 individuals were diagnosed with COPD, with a 2014 prevalence of 9.3%. Of these, 51.9% never underwent spirometry. During the same period, 105,304 individuals were diagnosed with lung cancer, among whom COPD was previously diagnosed in 34.9%. Having COPD prior to lung cancer was associated with lower income, a rural dwelling, a lower Charlson morbidity score, and less frequent stage IV disease (48 vs 54%, p < 0.001). Spirometry was more commonly undertaken in early stage disease (90.6% in stage I-II vs. 54.4% in stage III-IV). CONCLUSION: Over a third of individuals with lung cancer had a prior diagnosis of COPD. Among individuals with advanced lung cancer, greater use of spirometry and diagnosis of COPD may help to mitigate respiratory symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".